Clean Air Act Advisory Committee Me

CAIR Update
 

Brian McLean, Director
 

Office of Atmospheric Programs
 

Bill Harnett, Director
 

Air Quality Policy Division
 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
 

September 18, 2008
 
Overview
 

• CAIR and the Court Decision
 • Impacts and Consequences
 • Options for Action 

– Legal – Legislative – Regulatory 
What Is the Clean Air Interstate Rule (

ug/m3 •	 CAIR is EPA’s strategy to reduce interstate transport of emissions contribut

nonattainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for fine 

and ozone in the eastern U.S. 

•	 Uses an optional set of 3 interstate trading programs to achieve highly cost

emission reductions of sulfur dioxide (SO

2) and nitrogen oxides (NO

x) 

•	 Not intended to be a

Eastern urban/rural fine particles panacea, but a valua

30 led efforts to attain the 25

201510
 standard
 

•	 EPA successfully add

5 similar ozone problem 

0

well as reduce acid ra

1997 

Standard haze annual 

St.Louis/3 Sites

Birmingham/SIP

Indy/LIVO

Atlanta/2 Sites

Cleveland/MKGO

Charlotte/LIGO

Richmond/JARI

Baltimore/DOSO

Bronx/BRIG by developing the NO

Trading Program undCall 

Urban Contribution Regional Contribution 

12-month average PM2.5 mass from speciation samplers Reference: 2002 EPA Trends Report http://www.epa.gov/air/airtrends/chem_spec_of_pm2.5_b.pdf 
July 11, 2008 – CAIR Court Decis

•	 EPA was sued by a few parties on various 

aspects of CAIR following promulgation in 200

•	 The Court issued its decision* on July 11, 200

–	 Opinion was mixed: ruled for CAIR in some instanc

and against it in others 

–	 Overall the decision vacated the entire rule and the 

FIP 

*summary of Court decision in Appendix 
What Are the Consequences of the C

Decision?
 

• Disruption/delay of industry plans for inst

and operation of pollution abatement equ

• Lost health and environmental benefits • Increased administrative costs to governm

and industry 

• Questions of future cap and trade progra

viability 
SO2 Emissions from the Power Sect

in the Short-term (2009-2011)*
 

Potential Annual SO2 Emissions under Various 

Quick Fix Options in 2009-2011 for the CAIR Region*
 

0 

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 

10,000 12,000 

1,000 tons 

2009 2010 2011 CAIR Phase I C

Non-CAIR SO2 Sources 

CAIR SO2 Sources 

2005 Emissions Full CAIR No Fix CAIR Ph I w/ 2 CAIR Ph I w/ 4 CAIR P

YR Sunset YR Sunset Perman

* This chart considers forecasted emissions from full CAIR and various quick fix alternatives. It does not factor in independent 

industry to provide added controls without other direct federal requirements. For subsequent years, Clean Air Act requirements 

result in new control measures needed to attain the current NAAQS and implement the more stringent 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5 
Benefits Relative to CAIR in the 

Short-term (2009-2011)*
 

Potential Annual Premature Deaths for Various Quick Fix Options 

in 2009-2011 for the CAIR Region* 

No Fix CAIR Ph I w/ 2 YR CAIR Ph I w/ 4 YR CAIR Ph I P

Sunset Sunset 

0 

2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 

10,000 12,000 14,000 

Annual Premature Deaths 

*This chart considers forecasted emissions from full CAIR and various quick fix alternatives. It does not factor in independent aindustry to provide added controls without other direct federal requirements. For subsequent years, Clean Air Act requirements 

result in new control measures needed to attain the current NAAQS and implement the more stringent 2006 NAAQS for PM2.5 
Impacts on State Planning
 

•	 Attaining and maintaining National Ambient Air Q

Standards (NAAQS) for ozone and fine particles 

–	 Attainment demonstrations that relied on CAIR 

–	 Reasonably Achievable Control Technology determinat

CAIR controls were presumed to be RACT 

–	 Adequacy review for motor vehicle emission budgets 

–	 Maintenance plans relying on CAIR for redesignation to 

–	 1997 Ozone and PM2.5 SIPs 

•	 Regional Haze 

–	 Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) determinatio

reasonable progress plans relying on CAIR 

–	 Regional Haze SIPs 

•	 The Court decision did not consider or affect state

obligations to eliminate significant contribution to states’ ozone and fine particle pollution 
Decisions Needed
 

• How will we deal with SIP approvability 

issues? 

• Do we proceed with findings of failure 

submit for Regional Haze and PM? 

• How do we deal with “clocks” for findin

ozone and Section 110(a)(2)(d)(i)? 
Regional Haze SIPs Submitted or on th

•	 There are 26 CAIR-affected states covered under the 

haze program (Arkansas, Connecticut, and Massachusubject to CAIR for ozone-only, which is not regulated haze rule) 

•	 20 CAIR-affected states for PM2.5 planned to rely on C

reductions to satisfy BART 

•	 23 CAIR states for PM2.5 planned to rely on CAIR in e

setting Reasonable Progress Goals or, in those states Class I areas, in assuming emission reductions due to when analyzing impacts on Class I states 

•	 Summary of CAIR states’ SIP submissions: 

–	 6 final SIPs submitted 

–	 12 SIPs in public review process 

–	 All but 4 CAIR states/DC planning to submit SIPs by en
PM and Ozone SIPs Submitted or on t

•	 There are 26 CAIR states or states impacted by C

have submitted or will be submitting 8-hr ozone aPM2.5 SIPs for their nonattainment areas 

•	 There are 30 8-hr ozone SIPs due and 54 PM2.5 a

due 

•	 Each of the 26 states planned to rely on CAIR for 

considerations such as determining the attainmendetermining what if any additional controls to adoreliance on CAIR modeling in the attainment dem

•	 16 of the 26 states planned to rely on the presum

CAIR=RACT for NOX and/or SO2 for EGUs in the 

region 
•

•

UpisstraStademneeindcon

•LinkaDown•Linkato DowOzone 

A Picture Speaks a Thousand Wor
Do We Proceed with Findings of Fail

Submit for Regional Haze and PM

• Preliminary decision has been made to 

issue findings of failure to submit for latregional haze SIPs on October 3, 2008

• Preliminary decision to issue findings fo

PM SIPs in same timeframe
 
How Do We Deal with “Clocks” for Find

Ozone and 110(a)(2)(d)(i)?
 

• Findings for ozone were issued in Mar

2008, which started a 2-year FIP/sancclock 

• Findings for 110(a)(2)(d)(i) were issue

CAIR FIP in 2006; 2-year FIP clock haexpired 
Long-term Issue: Future of Emissions 

and SIPs
 

•	 In resolving interstate transport issues under Se

110 and 126, what is the role for emissions tradInterstate? Intrastate? 

•	 Emissions trading has been an extremely effect

at reducing regional emissions and ambient concentrations of pollutants at lower costs (Title NOX Budget Trading Program) 

•	 Emission caps address new and existing source
Some Other Affected Rules and Acti

•	 Clean Air Act Section 126 Petitions 

–	 EPA denied North Carolina’s 126 petition in June 2007 

–	 Denial relied on promulgation of the CAIR FIP which w

control interstate transport in all jurisdictions covered bincluding the upwind states linked to NC 

•	 Federal implementation plan to address interstate transpo

ozone and fine particle pollution in the CAIR region 

–	 The court decision vacated the CAIR FIP, however EP

statutory duties with regard to findings of failure to subnot affected 

•	 International Agreements 
Options for Action: Legal
 

•	 Federal government is reviewing basis for rehe

and will make a decision by September 24 regaa request for rehearing 

•	 Nature and timing of Court response are uncert
Options for Action: Legislative
 

•	 Senate hearing on July 29 and roundtable on S

•	 Both the Senate and the House are producing p

to reinstate CAIR, from a few years to “full CAIR

•	 Administration has been involved 

•	 Congress in session until Sept. 26 (target) 

–	 Level of interest is encouraging 

–	 Great uncertainty 

• Opposition of any single member, especially in the 

could be enough to block action 

–	 Hope remains 
Options for Action: Regulatory
 

•	 EPA is assessing options to retain CAIR reductions should 

not enact legislation and Court issues mandate 

•	 Regulatory response (by EPA and states) will require sever

probably entail litigation, and continue uncertainty 

•	 In the absence of legislation, multiple section 126 petitions l

submitted by states 

–	 Time would be needed for modeling, federal and state regulato

and compliance 

•	 EPA is taking steps to be ready for its role in administering t

2009 if and when the Court issues mandate 

–	 Agency encouraged states to examine options to ensure NBP 

2009 (Meyers, 9-2-08) 

•	 Substance and timing of state actions to address NAAQS a

Haze will be impacted by response to interstate transport 
Conclusion
 

•	 We face a serious situation with consequences 

the board: lost human health and environmentabenefits, increased burdens on states, costs to business and industry 

•	 Resolution will involve all three branches of gove

•	 Goal is reducing health and environmental impa

•	 Absent a legislative “fix”, restoration of benefits w

years and require significant new efforts by stateEPA, and industry 

•	 Outcome is uncertain 
APPENDIX
 
What the Court Decided
 

•	 The Court upheld several aspects of the CAIR rule relating 

methodology in determining which states should be affecte2009 Phase I NOx deadline. 

•	 The Court found six problems: 

–	 CAIR trading programs are flawed because the region 

on emission reductions did not factor in each state’s coto air pollution issues 

–	 EPA did not give independent significance to the “inter

maintenance language” in section 110(a)(2)(D) and thuprovide enough protection to downwind areas 

–	 The 2015 compliance date for Phase 2 of CAIR is inco

with downwind states’ 2010 attainment deadlines for P

ozone NAAQS 
What the Court Decided, cont.
 

–	 Both SO2 and NOx budgets (i.e., the allowances state

given in their trading programs) were not based on thobjectives of section 110(a)(2)(D) and were thus inva

–	 EPA lacked authority to remove Title IV (Acid Rain Pr

allowances through CAIR, or change the amount of S

emissions that an allowance permits 

–	 EPA did not properly address certain claims of measu

errors raised by Minnesota regarding its contributions 

and SO2 emissions